Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752700AbZALWKj (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:10:39 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751797AbZALWK3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:10:29 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f21.google.com ([209.85.218.21]:60302 "EHLO mail-bw0-f21.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751449AbZALWK2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:10:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:10:23 +0100 From: Frederik Deweerdt To: Andi Kleen Cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] tlb flush_data: replace per_cpu with an array Message-ID: <20090112221023.GB10720@gambetta> References: <20090112213539.GA10720@gambetta> <20090112215701.GH23848@one.firstfloor.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090112215701.GH23848@one.firstfloor.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1384 Lines: 31 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:57:02PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:35:42PM +0100, Frederik Deweerdt wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On x86_64 flush tlb data is stored in per_cpu variables. This is > > unnecessary because only the first NUM_INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTORS entries > > are accessed. > > This patch aims at making the code less confusing (there's nothing > > really "per_cpu") by using a plain array. It also would save some memory > > on most distros out there (Ubuntu x86_64 has NR_CPUS=64 by default). > > Nope it doesn't save memory on most systems because per cpu is only allocated > based on the CPUs that are actually there. And if you have more than 8 > cores you can likely afford a few bytes per CPU. I did not understand that, thanks for clarifiying > > You would need to cache line pad each entry then, otherwise you risk > false sharing. That would make the array 1K on 128 bytes cache line > system. This means on small systems this would actually waste > much more memory. > > per cpu avoids that problem completely. It is also slower (or so percpu.h says), and confusing I'd say. Regards, Frederik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/